DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “metal” should be inserted after “alkaline-earth” on line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with MPEP § 2111, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation wherein “the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 f.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993.) It is also noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kodama (WO2021/124857A1, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections). Kodama discloses a thermoplastic resin composition (Abstract) comprising (A) a modified polyolefin resin having a functional group, particularly an acid-modified polypropylene resin obtained by graft polymerization of maleic acid or maleic anhydride onto the resin, such as those commercially available from Mitsui Chemicals under the tradename ADMER™ (Paragraph 0010); (B) a metal alkoxide and/or a metal chelate, preferably acetylacetonate metal compounds, stearyl metal compounds, metal alkylate compounds and/or acetacetate metal compounds, with aluminum, titanium, zirconium, zinc, etc. as the metals, and more particularly, aluminum tris(acetylacetonate), zinc acetylacetonate, tetrastearyl titanate, aluminum isopropylate, aluminum trisethylacetoacetate, and zirconium mono, di, tri, tetraacetylacetenate (Paragraph 0011); (C) a thermoplastic elastomer resin (Abstract); and optionally (D) a nucleating agent (Paragraph 0014). Kodama specifically discloses an example, Example 1, comprising 40 parts by weight of maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene (MAH-PP, reading upon the instantly claimed ingredient B as in instant claim 1, and particularly as in instant claims 2 and 9-12), 60 parts by weight of polypropylene elastomer, and 0.5 parts by weight of aluminum tris(acetylacetonate) (Al(acac)3) as a crosslinking agent (reading upon the instantly claimed ingredient A as in instant claim 1, and particularly as in instant claims 4-8 as well as the content thereof as recited in instant claim 13 relative to 100 parts by mass of the sum of Al(acac)3 and MAH-PP) that are melt kneaded at a temperature of 200°C to obtain a thermoplastic adhesive composition; and given that the Examiner takes the position that “when” the MAH-PP is crosslinked as in the claimed invention via Al metal ion released from Al(acac)3 as the instantly claimed ingredient B to form a crosslinked product, the flow start temperature thereof would inherently fall within the claimed range (especially given that MAH-PP and Al(acac)3 are the same components as utilized in the instant invention with Al(acac)3 specifically utilized the working examples and in contents as instantly claimed), the Examiner takes the position that absent any evidence to the contrary, instant claims 1-2 and 4-13 directed to the “crosslinkable polymer composition” are anticipated by Kodama.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minoura (The Reaction of Polypropylene with Maleic Anhydride). Minoura discloses ionic crosslinked rubber-like polymers (ICPs) obtained from the reaction of maleic anhydride modified atactic or isotactic polypropylene (MA-APP or MA-IPP, respectively, p. 1632; reading upon the claimed ingredient B of instant claim 1, and particularly as in instant claims 2 and 9-12) with alkali metal compounds (reading upon the claimed ingredient A of instant claim 1), such as NaOH, KOH, and Mg(OCOCH3)2, under heating at 50~80°C (as in instant claims 4 and 14), with lithium, sodium, potassium, and magnesium ionically crosslinked MA-APP resins having an apparent melting point of 195-230°C in comparison to the apparent melting point of 55°C for the MA-APP (Table III, Fig. 14; as in instant claims 2 and 12) falling within the claimed “flow starting temperature” range of instant claim 1; and hence Minoura anticipates instant claims 1-2, 4, 9-12, and 14 (Entire document, particularly pp. 1628-1629 and 1636-1637).
With respect to instant claim 3, Minoura discloses that the hardness of MA-APP tended to increase relative to those of APP as the MA content increased, noting that for example, unmodified APP has a hardness of 10~15 while MA-APP with MA content of 4.5 has a hardness of 50~55 based on Japan Industrial Standard (same as a Shore D hardness), and given that Minoura specifically discloses that the MA-APP and ionic crosslinked polymers listed in Table III having apparent melting points within the instantly claimed range as recited in instant claim 1 have a content of only 1.01 mol% MA, the Examiner takes the position that Minoura discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claim 3 (Entire document, particularly pp. 1628-1629 and 1636-1637, Table III).
With respect to instant claims 4 and 7, given that Mg(OCOCH3)2 undergoes a phase transition within the “phase transition temperature” range of instant claim 4, and Mg is an alkaline earth metal as in instant claim 7, Minoura also anticipates instant claims 4 and 7.
Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oliveira (Synthesis of aluminium nanoparticles in a PP matrix during melt processing: Effect of the alkoxide organic chain). Oliveira discloses a polymer composition comprising polypropylene graft-modified with maleic anhydride (PP-g-MA, POLYBOND® 3200) with a melting temperature around 160°C and a MA content of 1 wt.% (reading upon the instantly claimed ingredient B as recited in instant claims 1-2 and 9-12), hot mixed with aluminium acetylacetonate (Al(acac)3), which has a melting temperature of 190°C (reading upon the clamed ingredient A as in instant claim 1 and particularly as in instant claims 4-8, given that Al(acac)3 is inherently capable of releasing aluminum ions upon heating above its melting temperature) in a ratio of 1:1 maleic anhydride: Al(acac)3 as precursor (thus as in instant claim 13; Entire document, particularly Abstract and Section 2. Experimental); and although the focus of Oliveira is to produce Al nanoparticles by subjecting a molded sheet produced from the mixed polymer composition to a hydrolysis-condensation reaction as discussed in Section 2.2, given that Oliveira specifically discloses that the polymer composition containing the PP-g-MA and Al(acac)3 is hot mixed wherein the melting temperature increased to a constant value of 193°C after 5 min prior to the hydrolysis treatment, and that the composition prior to hydrolysis treatment exhibits crosslinking while maintaining the close form of MA ring as evidenced by the FT-IR results (thus a crosslinked polymer material as in instant claim 14; Section 3, particularly 3.1 and 3.2.2), the Examiner takes the position that Oliveira discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate the crosslinkable polymer composition of instant claims 1-2 and 4-13 as well as the crosslinked polymer material of instant claim 14.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van der Mee (Thermoreversible Crosslinking of Maleated Ethylene/Propylene Rubber using Ionic Interactions, Hydrogen Bonding and a Combination thereof). Van der Mee discloses thermoreversibly crosslinking maleated ethylene/propylene copolymer (MAn-g-EPM, reading upon the instantly claimed ingredient B as in instant claims 1 and 9-12) via different routes including via ionic interactions, i.e., ionomers, as well as hydrogen bonding and a combination thereof, wherein ionomers with two different cations, namely zinc (Zn) and potassium (K) are obtained by neutralization of the grafted maleic anhydride groups of the MAn-g-EPM polymer to different degrees of neutralization with zinc acetate dihydrate (reading upon the claimed ingredient A as recited in instant claim 1 and particularly as in instant claim 4 given that zinc acetate dihydrate has a “decomposition or phase transition temperature” within the claimed range, as evidenced by the attached Wikipedia.org article entitled “Zinc acetate”, see Properties section on p. 3) and potassium acetate (page 97), respectively, as depicted in Scheme I with respect to (released) zinc ions (reading upon the instantly claimed ingredient A of instant claims 1 and 7); and given that van der Mee specifically discloses working examples wherein the MAn-g-EPM has a Shore A hardness of 38 (Table II, falling within the instantly claimed shore-D hardness of lower than 50 as recited in instant claim 3 given that Shore A scale is a lower hardness scale than Shore D scale) with a flow starting temperature within the claimed range as recited in instant claim 2 (as evidenced by Fig. 3 and which is lower than a decomposition/phase transition temperature of the zinc acetate dihydrate as in instant claim 5), with the resulting ionically crosslinked Zn-50, Zn-75, and Zn-100 examples (reading upon the Zn metal ion of instant claim 7, and also reading upon the claimed content of instant claim 13 given that the “50”, “75” and “100” refer to the degree of neutralization of the 2.1 wt% of grafted maleic anhydride of the MAn-g-EPM polymer) having flow start temperatures of 190°C or higher and 300°C or lower as instantly claimed as evidenced by Fig. 3, the Examiner takes the position that van der Mee discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiumi (WO2021/193811A1, please refer to US2023/0265263A1 as an English translation of the WO document for the below cited sections) in view of Minoura or van der Mee (discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference).
Oshiumi teaches a metal-crosslinkable polymer composition and a metal crosslinked polymeric material formed by crosslinking the metal-crosslinkable polymer composition as well as a metal member and an insulated wire conductor coated on at least a portion thereof with a coating comprising the metal-crosslinked polymeric material (as in instant claim 15) and a wiring harness (as in instant claim 17) comprising the coated metal member and coated insulated wire (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Figs. 2-3, Paragraphs 0056-0060, Claims), wherein the “metal-crosslinkable polymer composition includes an ingredient A which releases a metal ion when heated, and an ingredient B includes an organic polymer having a substituent group capable of forming an ionic bond with the metal ion released from the ingredient A” (Abstract). Oshiumi teaches that ingredient A preferably has a decomposition point or a phase transition point from 50°C to 200°C (Paragraph 0016, as in instant claim 4), and is preferably a metal complex comprising an alkoxide ligand such as an isopropoxide, or a β-diketonato ligand represented by formula (1) as shown in Paragraph 0036, such as an acetylacetonato (acac) (Paragraphs 0018-0020, as in instant claim 6), of a metal selected from the group consisting of an alkaline earth metal, zinc, titanium, and aluminum, as the released metal ion (Paragraph 0020, as in instant claims 7-8); with working examples specifically utilizing aluminum(III) acac which has a phase transition onset point of 112°C (Paragraph 0075, reading upon the instantly claimed ingredient A as recited in instant claims 1, 4, and 6-8). Oshiumi teaches that preferably “the substituent group of the ingredient B is at least one selected from the group consisting of carboxylic acid groups, acid anhydride groups, phosphoric acid groups and sulfonic acid groups” (Paragraph 0022, as in instant claim 9); and that the ingredient B is preferably in a liquid state at 150°C or lower (Paragraph 0023, overlapping the flow starting temperature range of instant claim 2), wherein examples of the organic polymer include polyolefin, polybutadiene, and polyisoprene, with the latter two being able to provide flowability at room temperature (Paragraph 0041). Oshiumi also teaches that the substituent group may be introduced into a main chain of the organic polymer or into a side chain of the organic polymer as in instant claim 1 (Paragraph 0041), with working examples utilizing maleic anhydride-modified polybutadiene and thus having the maleic anhydride as a side chain reading upon the claimed “ingredient B comprising an organic polymer having a side chain” and “ingredient B comprises, in the side chain, an electron-withdrawing substituent group capable of forming an ionic bond with the metal ion released from ingredient A” as in instant claim 1 (and particularly as in instant claim 9); and although Oshiumi teaches that the metal-crosslinkable polymer composition shows excellent heat resistance because the organic polymer of the ingredient B is crosslinked via the ionic bond (Paragraph 0045), Oshiumi does not teach that when the ingredient B is crosslinked via the metal ion released from ingredient A to form the crosslinked product, the crosslinked product has a flow starting temperature of 190°C or higher and 300°C or lower as recited in instant claim 1.
However, it is again noted that Oshiumi clearly teaches that the organic polymer to which the substituent group is introduced may be a polyolefin as well as the polybutadiene as utilized in the examples such that the use of a maleic anhydride-modified polyolefin as ingredient B would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and further given that polypropylene and ethylene/propylene copolymers are obvious species of polyolefin in the art and that as taught by Minoura or van der Mee, respectively, as discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference, maleated polypropylene or maleated ethylene/propylene (as in instant claims 9-12) may have an apparent melting or flow starting temperature lower than 150°C and particularly within the claimed range as recited in instant claim 2, and thus may be “in a liquid state at 150°C or lower” as is preferred by Oshiumi, and lower than a decomposition or phase transition temperature of Al(acac)3 as in instant claim 5, and is capable of being metal crosslinked as in Oshiumi (and the instantly claimed invention), with an example of Minoura specifically showing that maleic anhydride modified atactic polypropylene (as the claimed ingredient B of instant claims 1 and 9-12) that is ionically crosslinked with magnesium ions may provide an apparent melting point of 230°C falling within the claimed “flow starting temperature” range for the crosslinked product of 190°C or higher and 300°C or lower as recited in instant claim 1, while several examples of van der Mee show that maleic anhydride grafted ethylene/propylene copolymer (as the claimed ingredient B of in instant claims 1-3 and 9-12) that is ionically crosslinked with zinc ions may also provide a “flow starting temperature” falling within the claimed range for the crosslinked product of 190°C or higher and 300°C or lower as recited in instant claim 1. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-12, 14-15 and 17 would have been obvious over the teachings of Oshiumi in view of Minoura or van der Mee given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success and/or prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to instant claim 13, Oshiumi teaches that it is preferable that the ingredient A contains 0.2 parts by mass or larger and 30 parts by mass or smaller with respect to 100 parts by mass of the ingredient B (Paragraph 0042), encompassing the claimed 1 to 30 parts by mass range of instant claim 13 and hence instant claim 13 would have been obvious over Oshiumi in view of Minoura or van der Mee for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to instant claim 1 from which instant claim 13 depends.
With respect to instant claim 16, Oshiumi teaches that the wire conductor may be a stranded wire composed of a plurality of elemental wires (Paragraph 0060); and also teaches that the insulated wire may have a flat portion where the conductor has a flat shape in a cross-section perpendicular to an axial direction of the insulated wire as shown in Fig. 3, as in instant claim 16, and given that stranded wires in general may be provided in a twisted form and/or as flat cables as is typical in the art, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, instant claim 16 would have been obvious over Oshiumi in view of Minoura or van der Mee for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to instant claim 15 from which instant claim 16 depends.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
It is further noted that the applied reference has a common joint inventor with the instant application and based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it also constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hase (US2009/0301756A1) in view of Minoura (as discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference) or van der Mee (as discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference) or Raidt (Ionically Cross-Linked Shape Memory Polypropylene).
Hase teaches an insulated electric wire and a wiring harness including the insulated wire, wherein the insulated wire comprises a conductor, such as a strand wire comprising a plurality of individual wires twisted together as in the examples (Abstract, Paragraphs 0029-0031 and 0105 as in instant claims 15-17); and a multilayer insulating coating covering the wire conductor and including an inside coat in contact with the conductor and an outside coat covering an outermost layer of the inside coat (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Paragraphs 0027-0031 and Examples). Hase teaches that the inside coat is made from an olefin resin including a functional group, preferably one or more “selected from a carboxylic acid group, an acid anhydrous group, an epoxy group, a hydroxyl group, an amino group, an alkenyl cyclic imino ether group, and a silane group” (Abstract, Paragraph 0012); wherein the olefin resin may be a propylene resin such as a polypropylene, or an ethylene resin such as an ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymer; and the functional group may be introduced into the olefin resin in the form of a graft-modified polymer, with a weight percentage of the functional group contained in the olefin resin preferably in the range of 0.1 to 10wt%, with working examples utilizing various maleic anhydride modified/grafted polyolefins (e.g., as in instant claims 9-12; Paragraphs 0035-0039 and 0079-0093). Hase teaches that the outside coat is formed from a non-halogen flame-retardant resin composition comprising a non-halogen base resin and a flame retardant, wherein the base resin is preferably an olefin resin that may be modified by an unsaturated carboxylic acid or a derivative thereof such as maleic acid anhydride (Paragraphs 0052-0058); and the flame retardant is preferably a metallic hydrate such as “magnesium hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide, zirconium hydroxide, hydrated magnesium silicate, hydrated aluminum silicate, basic magnesium carbonate and hydrotalcite” (Paragraph 0061), present in a content of preferably 5 to 250 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the polymer component (Paragraph 0060, wherein the Examiner notes that metallic hydrates are capable of releasing a metal ion by heat as with the instantly claimed ingredient A). Hase teaches that the metallic hydrate may be subject to surface finishing using a finishing agent such as a fatty acid metallic salt, a silane coupling agent, and a titanate coupling agent (Paragraph 0062, wherein the Examiner notes that titanate coupling agents as well as fatty acid metallic salts such as metal stearates like zinc stearate are capable of releasing a metal ion by heat as with the instantly claimed ingredient A). Hase teaches that various additives such as a cross-linking agent can be added to the olefin resin of the inside coat in a content of 30 parts by weight or less with respect to 100 parts of the olefin resin (Paragraphs 0046-0047); and similarly the composition for the outside coat may contain one or more additives such as metallic oxides, e.g., an oxide of zinc, aluminum, magnesium, lead and tin; a cross-linking agent; a cross-linking auxiliary agent; and an inorganic filler such as calcium sulfate, calcium silicate, and aluminum nitride (Paragraph 0063, wherein the Examiner notes that metallic oxides as well as some of the inorganic fillers taught by Hase are also capable of releasing a metal ion by heat as with the instantly claimed ingredient A).
Hase also teaches that “from the viewpoint of further improving heat resistance, the outside coat and the inside coat may be cross-linked by the use of, for example, radiation, a peroxide and a silane cross-linking agent” (Paragraph 0065). Hase specifically teaches working examples utilizing maleic anhydride-modified/grafted olefin resins in the inside coat as well as the outside coat, particularly a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene (e.g., similar to Minoura) manufactured by Mitsui Chemicals, Inc., and commercially available under the tradename ADMER™ QE060 in the inside coat as well as the outside coat, wherein the Examiner notes that ADMER™ QE060 has a Shore D hardness of 63 (as evidenced by Kyo, US2018/0361795A1) and a melting point of 140°C (as evidenced by Nakagawa, US2018/0056718A1); a maleic anhydride-grafted very low density polyethylene manufactured by Mitsui Chemicals, Inc., and commercially available under the tradename ADMER™ XE070 in the inside coat, which has a Shore D hardness of 33 (as evidenced by Seta, JP2009161599A, see Paragraph 0058 of the attached machine translation) and a melting point of 84°C (as evidenced by Seta, US2010/0047597A1, Paragraph 0070); a maleic anhydride grafted ethylene propylene rubber (similar to van der Mee) available from JSR Corporation in the outside coat; a maleic anhydride grafted styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS) available from Kraton Polymers LLC under the trade name FG1901X, which has a Shore A hardness of 71 (as evidenced by the attached KRATON™ FG1901X Polymer Data Document, and is known to start to flow around 190°C); a maleic anhydride grafted ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer manufactured by Mitsui Chemicals, Inc., and commercially available under the tradename ADMER™ VE300 which has a melting point of 90°C (as evidenced by Horie, US2023/0361370A1, Paragraphs 0331 and 0339); a maleic anhydride modified ethylene-ethyl acrylate copolymer manufactured by Arkema Inc., and commercially available as BONDINE® AX8390, which has a Shore D hardness of 14 and a melting point of 67°C (as evidenced by the attached Arkema BONDINE® Grade List) as well as examples utilizing an ionomer resin manufactured by DuPont-Mitsui Polychemicals Co., Ltd., and commercially available under the tradename HIMILAN™ 1706 (which has a Shore D hardness of ~ 64 as evidenced by Tarao, US2009/0264223A1, Paragraph 0131; and a melting point of ~ 88°C as evidenced by Matsumoto, US2008/0070124A1, Paragraph 0302) in the outside coat, wherein Hase specifically recites that the above ionomer resin is one “where cross-links are formed between molecules of an ethylene-methacrylic acid copolymer via zinc ions” (Paragraph 0083, as illustrated in the attached HIMILAN™ Product Information, wherein the Examiner further notes that HIMILAN™ 1706 has a methacrylic acid content of 15wt% and a zinc oxide content of 3.7wt% with a neutralization degree of about 55% as evidenced by Shigemori, Direct melt neutralization and nano-structure of polyethylene ionomer-based nano-composites, Section 2.1). Hence, given that Hase clearly teaches: a) that both the inside coat and outside coat may contain an olefin polymer modified or grafted by an unsaturated carboxylic acid or anhydride thereof and thus present in a side chain of the modified olefin, such as a maleic-anhydride modified/grafted polypropylene as utilized in the examples, particularly ADMER™ QE060 which has a melting point of 140°C (reading upon the claimed ingredient B that “comprises, in the side chain, an electron-withdrawing substituent group capable of forming an ionic bond with the metal ion released from ingredient A” as recited in instant claim 1, and particularly as in instant claims 2 and 9-12) or ADMER™ XE070 which has a Shore D hardness of 33 and a melting point of 84°C or an ionomer such as HIMILAN™ 1706 as utilized in the examples which is an ethylene-methacrylic acid copolymer that is crosslinked by zinc ions with the (zinc-crosslinked) ionomer having a Shore D hardness of 64 thereby suggesting a lower Shore D hardness for the ethylene-methacrylic copolymer resin prior to incorporation of the zinc ions; b) that both the inside coat and the outside coat may include a cross-linking agent and may be cross-linked to improve the heat resistance thereof; and c) that the outside coat may further include a metallic hydrate such as magnesium hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide, zirconium hydroxide, and hydrated magnesium silicate, and/or finishing agent such as a fatty acid metallic salt or titanate coupling agent, and/or metallic oxides and/or other metallic compounds that are capable of releasing metal ions by heat; the only difference between the crosslinkable polymer composition of Hase and the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 1 is that Hase does not teach that “when ingredient B [i.e., the functionalized olefin resin such as the maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene or maleic anhydride ethylene copolymer(s)] is crosslinked via the metal ion released from ingredient A to form a crosslinked product, the crosslinked product has a flow starting temperature of 190°C or higher and 300°C or lower” as recited in instant claim 1.
However, given that instant claim 1 does not require the composition to actually be crosslinked, and that the crosslinkable composition taught by Hase for the inside and/or outside coat(s) comprising an olefin resin, such as an ethylene or propylene resin, including a carboxylic acid group or anhydride thereof, such as maleic anhydride as utilized in the examples, thereby comprising, in the side chain, an electron-withdrawing substituent capable of forming an ionic bond with a metal ion, is capable of being ionically crosslinking with metal ions that may be released from metal compounds as taught by Hase, broadly reading upon ingredient A as in instant claim 1 as well as instant claims 7-8, and in turn, capable of forming a crosslinked product that has a flow starting temperature within the claimed range (as evidenced by Minoura or van der Mee or Raidt, Entire documents), the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 1 as well as instant claims 2-3 and 7-12 (with respect to the modified olefin resin and metal ion type) would have been obvious over the teachings of Hase given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, given that Hase clearly teaches that the both inside and outside coats comprising the modified olefin resin(s) may be crosslinked by a crosslinking agent present in a content as in instant claim 13, with a clear teaching and/or suggestion that crosslinking may be via ionic crosslinking with metal ions in light of the discussion with respect to the Zn ionomer HIMILAN™ 1706 utilized in the examples, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize any metal compound known in the art as an ionic crosslinking agent in the invention taught by Hase, such as those taught by Minoura or van der Mee or Raidt reading upon ingredient A as recited in instant claims 1, 4 and 7-8, utilizing routine experimentation to determine the optimum content of functional groups and ionic crosslinking agent within the ranges taught by Hase for a given level of ionic crosslinking (as taught and/or suggested by Minoura or van der Mee or Raidt) to provide the desired heat resistance, e.g., as determined by flow starting temperature, for a particular end use of the insulated wire and wiring harness taught by Hase such that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed crosslinkable composition as recited in instant claims 1-4 and 7-13 as well as crosslinked polymer material, insulated wire, and harness formed therefrom as recited in instant claims 14-15 and 17 would have been obvious over the teachings of Hase in view of Minoura or van der Mee or Raidt given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Further with respect to instant claims 4 and 7-8 as well as instant claims 5-6, given that zinc acetylacetonate and aluminum acetylacetone are metal complexes as in instant claim 6 and are known ionic crosslinking agents in the art (as evidenced by Kodama, or Oliveira, or Oshiumi, each discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference, or by Wu, Preparation of high melt strength polypropylene by addition of an ionically modified polypropylene, Abstract, Sections 1-2) that release metal ions as in instant claims 7-8 and have a decomposition or phase transition temperature within the claimed range of instant claim 4 and may be greater than the melting or flow start temperatures of the modified olefin resins taught by Hase as in instant claim 5, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 4-8 would have been (further) obvious over the teachings of Hase in view of Minoura or van der Mee or Raidt given again that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to instant claim 16, as discussed in detail above, Hase clearly teaches that the conductor may be a strand wire comprising a plurality of individual wires twisted together as in the examples, and covered with the insulating coating to form the insulated wire, and although Hase does not specifically teach that the insulated wire has a flat portion where the conductor has a flat shape in a cross-section perpendicular to an axial direction of the insulated wire as recited in instant claim 16, given that flat wires or flat cables are typical in the art and that Hase does recite that the wiring harness protective material covering a wire bundle is formed so as to have its base material tape-shaped or so as to have its base material tube-shaped or sheet-shaped wherein the shape can be selected appropriately as usage (Paragraph 0075), the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 16 would have been obvious over the teachings of Hase in view of Minoura or van der Mee or Raidt, particularly given that shape, in general, is a matter of choice and can easily be determined by one having ordinary skill in the art based upon the intended end use of the insulating wire.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/682,344 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims are similarly directed to a crosslinkable polymer composition, crosslinked polymer material, insulated wire, and wiring harness as in the instant claims, wherein copending claim 1 encompasses all of the limitations of instant claim 1 and hence instant claim 1 would have been obvious over copending claim 2.
With respect to instant claims 2, 4-11, and 13-17, the limitations thereof are encompassed by copending claims 3, 4-11, and 12-16, respectively, and hence, instant claims 2, 4-11, and 13-17 would have been obvious over copending claims 3, 4-11, and 12-16, respectively.
With respect to instant claim 3, copending claim 1 recites that ingredient B has a shore D hardness of 50 or higher, while instant claim 3 recites that the ingredient B has a shore D hardness of lower than 50 such that the shore D hardness range of copending claim 1 touches the shore D hardness range of instant claim 3, and given that neither instant claim 3 nor copending claim 1 require any specific conditions for determining said shore D hardness such that the two ranges are essentially the same or within experimental error where they touch, e.g., 49.9999 is lower than 50 but essentially the same as 50 when considering experimental error, instant claim 3 would have been obvious over copending claim 1.
With respect to instant claim 12, copending claim 2 recites that ingredient B has a main chain comprising polypropylene and given that polypropylene is an olefin polymer, instant claim 12 would have been obvious over copending claim 2.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li (High melt strength polypropylene by ionic modification: Preparation, rheological properties and foaming behaviors) discloses a facile process to introduce ionic interactions to polypropylene (PP) based on Zn-neutralization and amine modification reactions of maleic anhydride grafted PP (PP-g-MAH), wherein a series of PP ionomers with different structures and ionic properties were synthesized via the choice of the pendant groups (Abstract). Fujiyama (Rheological Properties of Ionically Crosslinked Poly(propylene)-Type Thermoplastic Elastomers) discloses a poly(propylene) thermoplastic elastomer (PER) having maleic anhydride grafted thereon by reactive processing to produce a maleated PER (MPER) and then “[w]ith the intent of ionic crosslinking, metal compounds such as aluminum stearate (AlSt), magnesium stearate (MgSt), calcium stearate (CaSt), zinc stearate (ZnSt), potassium stearate (KSt), sodium stearate (NaSt), magnesium hydroxide (MH), zinc oxide (ZnO), and zinc sulfide (ZnS) were added to the MPER and melt mixed with the screw extruder, and crosslinked compounds were obtained” (Abstract) and the properties thereof, including degree of crosslinking and melt processability, were investigates with respect to the type and content of the crosslinking metal compound. Su (CN1266209C, machine translation also attached) discloses an ion-crosslinked, low-smoke, halogen-free flame-retardant thermoplastic elastomer composition which is particularly suitable for insulation and sheathing materials for wires and cables, wherein the composition comprises an ionomer produced from by adding sulfonic acid groups to EPDM and then mixing the sulfonated EPDM with a transition metal alkali salt. Lastly, Kanamori (US2004/0168820A1) discloses an insulated electric wire comprising a conductor coated with an insulating coating formed from a polymer composition comprising (A) 100 parts by weight of a mixture of a polypropylene/propylene-ethylene random copolymer microblend and a modified microblend prepared by bonding an organic acid group to the microblend; (B) not more than 700 parts by weight of polypropylene; and (C) 5 to 200 parts by weight of an ion cross-linking filler based on 100 parts by weight of the total amount of the component (A) and the component (B), wherein the ion cross-linking filler, such as magnesium oxysulfate, magnesium hydroxide, and aluminum hydroxide, forms an ion cross-linking structure with the organic acid groups, and may be treated with a known surface-treating agent such as fatty acids and fatty acid metals like magnesium stearate, aluminum stearate, zinc stearate, sodium stearate or potassium stearate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights